by leila.orynbayeva -

IMPULSE №8

This is my last blog post of the semester, and it feels like a good moment to pause, look back, and then look ahead. In my previous posts, I mostly focused on the challenges of shaping a full concept and understanding where my project could go. Now, instead of diving deeper into problems, I want to write about my next steps and how my thinking has started to shift.

In blog post number six, I wrote about the technical challenges I faced, especially around building and connecting digital and physical elements. During my final critique, Mr. Martin Kaltenbrunner gave me a piece of advice that really stayed with me. He encouraged me to step back and look at my project from above, instead of zooming in too early on one solution. He suggested focusing more on challenges in the physical world and thinking about how making them playful or digital could improve user engagement and traction. That comment helped me realize that I was sometimes too focused on making my concept work, instead of asking why people would enjoy using it in the first place.

Interestingly, around the same time, social media algorithms started doing their thing. I kept getting videos related to my topic, and instead of ignoring them, I leaned into it. I discovered beautiful examples of 3D-printed jewelry, and then I found a YouTube video showing a 3D ring with a small RFID chip embedded inside. After that, I came across several experiments and even failures involving NFC inside jewelry. Seeing both successful and unsuccessful attempts was incredibly valuable, because it made the process feel more realistic and approachable.

One example that really stuck with me was a blogger who turned her bus pass into a ring. It was such a simple idea, yet it perfectly showed how a boring everyday physical experience could be transformed into something playful and personal. That example made everything click. It was not just about technology, but about how design can shift the emotional experience of an action we do every day without thinking.

This also made me reflect on how digital solutions already help us transmit emotions across distance. Small things like animated text messages on Instagram or automatically generated video memories in the iOS gallery may seem simple, but they add emotional value. They make digital interactions feel warmer and more human. Seeing these examples helped me think beyond my original concept and reminded me that emotional design often lives in details.

Another important influence was a talk by Jared Friedman called How to Get and Evaluate Startup Ideas. Watching it helped me widen my perspective even more. It made me realize some mistakes I was close to making, especially trying to solve too many things at once or falling in love with a solution too early. The talk reminded me that strong ideas usually start with clear problems and grow through testing, feedback, and iteration.

Looking forward, my next steps are about exploration rather than final answers. I want to experiment more with physical objects, playful interactions, and emotional triggers. I want to test ideas quickly, observe how people react, and stay open to changing direction. This semester taught me that uncertainty is not a weakness in the process, but a necessary part of it.

I used ChatGPT to check the spelling and grammar of this text

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #8 – form follows fun(ction)?

I found a TED talk by Don Norman titled “The three ways that good design makes you happy“ which sparked my curiosity. Norman is famous for his work on emotional design and everyday things. This talk focuses on the importance of fun, beauty, and emotion in how we interact with technology. An interesting connection to some of the things I looked at through my previous blog posts
Norman explains that “pleasant things work better.” He argues that when we are happy or amused, our brains become more creative and better at solving problems. This idea is a perfect fit for my research into “Whimsical UX.” Usually, designers think of “fun” as a decoration or „add-on“ that we add at the end of a project. However, according to Norman, the emotional side of a product and/or interface is just as functional as the technical side. If an “unserious” interface makes a user smile or pause, it actually makes them more relaxed and capable of handling the interaction, even if it is not perfectly efficient.
This connects directly to the post-digital ideas I have been exploring through Florian Cramer’s work. A perfectly clean and “sterile” digital screen often feels cold and boring, which is a major cause of the digital fatigue I want to address. By adding personality or “whimsical” elements, we are not just making a toy, we are making a more human tool. It moves the focus away from the technology itself and puts it back on the quality of the human experience. As Andersen and Pold suggest in their work on interface criticism, we need to move away from interfaces that try to be “invisible” or “seamless.” A design that makes you laugh or look at a quirky detail is an interface that is “visible” and engaging. It forces you to be present in the moment.
Watching this talk helped me see that “whimsy or joy” and “intentional friction” are actually pretty closely related. Both are tools to break the habit of mindless swiping. Whether it is a physical knob that feels satisfying to turn or a digital menu that uses playful language, these elements create a moment of intention and connection. They turn a boring transaction into a meaningful interaction.

I think it could be fun to use Norman’s perspective to prove that “fun” is not a distraction from good design. In a world where everything is being forced into a screen for the sake of efficiency, and economical benefits, reintroducing joy is a radical and necessary act. My approach is to find a way to combine these themes: post-digital skepticism, the need for reflective friction, and the power of joy into a framework for a „post-screen” or „post-digital“ or „post-efficiency“ world. The idea is to design interfaces that do not just treat users like efficient machines, but like humans who value personality and play and experience.

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #7 – a paper!

Following up on my talk with Martin Kaltenbrunner, I have looked into the term “post-digital.” I wanted to understand what this means for my research on interfaces found a paper by Florian Cramer [1] which I feel is very helpful here. He describes that post-digital does not mean a time after computers. Instead, it means that in our current world digital and physical things are completely mixed together.
Many people are starting to feel tired of “perfect” digital systems. Cramer calls this a period of disenchantment. Today, digital technology is often seen as something sterile and clean. Because of this, some people choose older, „nostalgic“ tools like typewriters or vinyl records. They are not just being nostalgic, they are making a deliberate choice to reject certain aspects of electronic technology. They are questioning the idea that a screen is always an “upgrade” or “progress”. This fits with my observation that making everything a flat screen blindly and/by default can actually make the experience worse.
 A key idea in post-digital theory (according to Cramer) is that we should stop being fascinated by technology just because it is “new”. Since digital tools are everywhere now, they are no longer disruptive. This means we can look at them more critically. This connects to the “whimsical UX” angle I discussed I another post. If we stop trying to make everything super-efficient and high-tech, we can focus on other qualities of the interaction. We can start using digital and physical materials in more playful or unconventional ways.
In my research, I think it could be interesting to use this post-digital framework to move beyond just choosing between a screen or a physical button. The goal is a post-digital decision-making: using the technology most suitable to the job, rather than automatically “defaulting” to the latest innovative medium. This might mean using “intentional friction” to slow a user down and make them think, rather than making everything as fast as possible. This perspective aligns with Post-Digital Interface Criticism [2], which suggests that interfaces should be visible and reflective rather than “seamless” and invisible.
The next step is to find where exactly to start designing and changing. Maybe finding out if the feeling from physical installations can work in the digital world too. By using “unserious” frameworks, playful/emotional design I might find better ways to design everyday interfaces that feel more human and less sterile. Cramer’s idea of a “hacker attitude“ (taking systems apart and using them in ways that subvert their original intention) could also be a great starting point for this.

[1] https://lab404.com/142/cramer.pdf
[2] https://mediacommons.org/tne/pieces/manifesto-post-digital-interface-criticism

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #6 – a talk!

Following my recent discussions about the “screen-as-default” problem, I have also started exploring a different angle. While my previous focus was primarily on the physical tangibility of interfaces, a recent coaching session with Birgit Bachler led me to a new impulse centered on “whimsical UX.” Most modern design focuses on “frictionless” interaction, where every update to an app or system is intended to make things faster and more invisible. This focus on peak efficiency often leads to a loss of joy in digital tools. I am now looking into the concept of whimsical and “unserious” UX to challenge the idea that a UI should only be a tool for a specific task. Instead of only optimizing for speed, this approach considers how an interface can be designed for delight.

I am thinking about how interaction can be intentionally unconventional and how community-driven tools develop a specific “vibe” that standard tools do not center or even consider. Instead of focusing only on the comparison between pre-digital and digital states, I am considering a framework for a different design approach for example “intentional friction” that forces the user to slow down and engage with the process rather than clicking through it mindlessly.

A big part of this research topic is finding out when an approach like this is appropriate. Not every interface should be a playground and we have to keep in mind that efficiency remains necessary in many contexts. However, in some tools or products that contribute to digital fatigue, there is an opportunity to reintroduce personality. Many current design trends prioritize speed above all else, I want to explore alternative directions that prioritize the quality of the experience.
This shift expands my original problem statement. By looking at whimsy and joy, I am still addressing the issues of mindless interaction and digital fatigue, but I am moving beyond just hardware solutions. Whether the interface is a physical object or a screen, the objective in this angle of approach would be to move away from digitizing everything for purely economic reasons and sleek efficiency. I want to find ways to possibly make interaction feel more human/emotional/joyful. The steps to get there involve analyzing some frameworks and ideas that exist on this to see how they can offer better options for everyday interface design. And intersting first approach I found upon doing a quick research was a piece of work called „Interface Criticism: Aesthetics Beyond the Buttons“ by Christian Ulrik Andersen and Søren Bro Pold, where they discuss topics such as moving beyond usability and argue against treating interfaces as tools for efficiency, instead seeing them as complex, artistic, and cultural things.

https://www.academia.edu/78755388/Interface_Criticism_Aesthetics_Beyond_Buttons

by victoria.bremer -

Impulse #5 – Final Crit

For my fifth impulse, I have chosen the feedback from my final Crit talk with Martin Kaltenbrunner, who had some interesting insights on the topics I am interested in. My starting point for the thesis is currently a growing frustration with the “screen-as-default” trend. We’ve reached a point where efficiency and friction-less design are the ultimate goals, often leading to mindless interaction and digital fatigue.
In our meeting, we discussed the “blind urge” to digitalize everything, often driven mainly by economic reasons rather than a fulfilling, well-suited user experience. Mr. Kaltenbrunner suggested a specific research process to help me narrow down my scope. Instead of just looking at the “now,” I could compare three states:

Pre-Digital: How did we solve this task physically? What did interfaces used to look like?

Absolute Digitalization: The current state (mostly touchscreens)

Post-Digital / Hybrid: A new solution that doesn’t just “go back” to the old ways but uses the best of both worlds and considers the use case and its requirements. (Not the screen as one-for-all solution)

The goal isn’t nostalgia, but rather finding a “Post-Digital” development that acknowledges the digital but brings back the haptic, tangible quality of the physical.
The main takeaway and my current challenge is that I really need to pin down a specific use case. While my interest in tangible interfaces is broad, we did come to the conclusion to avoid overdone examples like car interfaces and instead find a niche where the shift to screens has genuinely made the experience worse (maybe going back to educational topics and school environments). I’m looking for a situation where losing friction and diversity has led to a loss of focus, and where a hybrid, tangible solution would actually provide more value than just a clean digital one.
I’m now searching for a topic: something specific enough to test but broad enough to help me find more general design principles. The advice from my talk is to go out and explore. This has shifted my focus away from theory and back to the real world. My next step could be to pick a few potential use cases and compare them to how they worked before, how they are digitalized now, and what a post-digital version could look like to see which one has the most potential. Another thing I will of course look into is some literature research about post-digitalization itself. I think it will be really valuable to familiarize myself with theories and terminology like this and find out what the state of research is. I have done a quick research out of curiosity and found a few papers and researchers that sound interesting, such as Florian Cramer who writes about the „Post-digital“ and Löwgren & Stolterman’s Material theory.

by tarek.marzouki -

IMPULSE #8: World Usability Congress | Graz 24 & 25

Attending the World Usability Congress two times was one of those experiences that leaves your brain pleasantly stimulated. It was a gathering of people who genuinely care about how technology fits into real human lives.

What intrigued me first was the strong emphasis on context. Again and again, speakers reminded us that usability doesn’t live in wireframes or prototypes—it lives in messy, unpredictable, real-world situations. Whether it was designing for high-stress environments like healthcare or for everyday tools we barely notice, the message was clear: if you don’t understand the user’s context, you don’t understand the problem. I also gained a deeper appreciation for the maturity of the UX field. There was a noticeable shift away from “best practices” as rigid rules and toward informed decision-making.

Design systems are like LEGO kits; they contain reusable components and instructions, they can be assembled in a variety of ways, and instructions are for both creation and use.

Accessibility was another major takeaway. Not as a checkbox, but as a mindset. Several sessions showed how inclusive design leads to better products for everyone, not just users with specific needs.

I was also reminded that usability is as much about ethics as it is about efficiency. Talks about dark patterns, persuasive design, and user trust highlighted the responsibility we have as practitioners. Just because something can be optimized doesn’t mean it should be. Designing with empathy and integrity is becoming just as important as designing for speed or conversion.

One of my favorite insights was about innovation built by great teams. Great usability doesn’t happen in isolation. Researchers, designers, developers, product managers, and stakeholders all shape the outcome, whether intentionally or not.

Reflections

I left the World Usability Congress 2024 and 2025 genuinely inspired. It reinforced why I care about usability in the first place and why I chose my thesis to be rooted in product UI UX design, because good design respects people’s time, attention, and limitations. And that’s a standard worth continually striving for.

Disclaimer: AI was used to fix any grammatical mistakes and for better phrasing.

by sopio.archilia -

IMPULSE: How to leverage AR in the new retail revolution

Reflections Inspired by a Zappar Talk

The YouTube video about “How to leverage AR in the new retail revolution” is zoom call based presentation about how augmented reality (AR) can be used in modern retail environments — how it can be applied in stores and customer experiences to influence shopping behavior and engagement. 

applications of AR in retail and how companies can use AR as a tool in the retail revolution.

One example discussed was a retail AR experience developed for Motorola. In this case, AR was used to explain product features and functionality through animated visual content. By scanning the product or its packaging with a smartphone, users could access AR explanations that went beyond static text or printed manuals.

What made this example particularly interesting to me is that the AR experience was not limited to the store. Customers could take the product home and still access the AR content later. This shifts AR from a one-time in-store interaction to a take-home support tool, allowing users to explore information at their own pace, without pressure.

Another point emphasized in the talk was the use of animation as a way to explain information. Instead of relying on long descriptions, AR animations visually demonstrate how a product works. In some cases, these animations are inspired by the brand’s logo or visual identity, which makes the experience feel familiar and playful rather than technical or overwhelming.

This combination of animation, branding, and explanation shows that AR can be both informative and enjoyable, helping users understand products while keeping the experience light.

Smartphone-first AR and everyday usability

All examples presented in the talk were based on smartphone AR, not headsets. This choice felt intentional and realistic. Smartphones are already part of everyday shopping behavior, and using them for AR does not require special preparation, waiting time, or staff assistance.

This reinforced my growing understanding that AR in retail does not need to be deeply immersive to be effective. Instead, it needs to be easy to access, easy to stop, and socially acceptable. In this sense, AR works best when it blends into the shopping process rather than standing out as a spectacle.

Why this talk motivated further research

What motivated me most about this talk is how rare this perspective still is. Despite the growing interest in AR, there are surprisingly few talks and examples that focus on practical AR in retail, explained through real use cases rather than marketing promises.

Seeing examples like the Motorola case made me realize how much potential AR still has as a quiet design intervention—one that reduces uncertainty, supports understanding, and lowers cognitive and emotional load during shopping.

This talk gave me a strong impulse to continue researching AR in retail from a user experience and emotional comfort perspective, especially because there is still limited accessible material that critically reflects on AR as a supportive, human-centered tool rather than a novelty.

Hands-on exploration: testing Zappar’s tools myself

After watching the talk, I decided to explore Zappar’s platform myself to better understand how their approach translates into practice. I visited their website and explored the examples and tools they provide, which led me to an actual working AR build environment. I tested several of their live AR experiences directly on my phone, and the overall performance was noticeably smooth and stable in use.

To gain deeper insight, I also tested the platform more extensively through a paid plan. The professional membership is relatively affordable (around 11 EUR per month), which made it accessible for experimentation and research purposes. I deliberately focused on some of the more challenging AR interactions for this type of tool, particularly face recognition–based try-on experiences and text-based AR interactions.

I tested several variations of these features, and the results were surprisingly reliable. Face tracking worked accurately, the try-on interaction felt responsive, and the text interactions were clear and easy to control. What impressed me most was not only the technical performance, but also the quality of the interface. The design felt intuitive, well-structured, and approachable, even when testing more complex AR actions.

This hands-on testing strengthened my impression that Zappar’s tools are not only conceptually interesting, but also practically usable for rapid prototyping and user experience research. Experiencing the platform directly helped me better understand how AR can be implemented in a way that feels smooth, accessible, and user-friendly—qualities that are essential for meaningful AR use in retail contexts.

It instantly generates a QR code, and you can test it on your phone quickly and easily. It works perfectly.

Reflection for my thesis

The Zappar examples strengthened my conviction that meaningful AR in retail does not require complex hardware or fully immersive environments. Instead, it requires thoughtful design, clear purpose, and respect for the user’s time, attention, and emotional state.

This impulse directly feeds into my Master’s thesis, where I explore how AR can support more comfortable and inclusive retail experiences—particularly for users who experience shopping as stressful or overwhelming. The talk confirmed that AR’s real value in retail lies not in replacing reality, but in quietly supporting it.

Leveraging Augmented Reality in Retail – Zappar Talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grnDgOHY9Tc

In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft.

by genovefa.zourkou -

3.8 IMPULSE #8

So, this is the last blog post I’m writing for this semester and, essentially, for my studies here at FH. In this post, I want to reflect on the pre-research phase I’ve been working through over the past three months: what I kept, what I changed, what new directions emerged, and what I will do next.

Throughout these posts, you might notice some gaps in how I describe my progress and decisions. I treated this series more like a space to think out loud than a clean research documentation. Still, it shows my process in a raw and honest way.

My writing has been heavily focused on Play. Before even naming social anxiety as a core research pillar, I already knew I wanted to explore play and closely related topics like gamification, board games, and video games. In the end, I did not directly include those formats in my topic. However, play remained central. I now treat it as a design perspective rather than as something tied to traditional definitions of play. I am especially interested in social play, since social anxiety is deeply connected to relationships between people and to how we experience ourselves in social spaces.

Social Anxiety, which I dedicated post #2 to, is what has shaped my theoretical frame so far. I am no longer trying to “represent” social anxiety as a state or a label. Instead, I am moving toward designing for social comfort and emotional safety through interaction. To do this responsibly, I still need to research its characteristics and emotional qualities more deeply through literature, as well as through interviews with therapists or practitioners. This will allow me to ground my design decisions in real experiences rather than assumptions.

From the beginning, I imagined Tangibility, or Tangible Interaction, as the main way people would engage with my artefact. Lately, I’ve realised that tangibility alone may not automatically serve what I want to achieve. What has started to matter more to me now is not just what people touch, but how their body is involved in the interaction. This is where Embodied Interaction comes in for me.

Instead of thinking only about screens, objects, or interfaces, Embodied Interaction looks at how meaning is shaped through the body. Through posture, movement, distance to others, breathing, and the way we physically respond to situations. That feels very close to social anxiety, because anxiety is not only something you “think.” It shows up in the body: in tightness, in hesitation, in avoiding eye contact, in staying still when you want to move, or moving when you want to disappear.

Working with the body allows me to explore these qualities in a more direct and experiential way, instead of only talking about them.

This is also where Soma Design fits into my thinking. It builds on Embodied Interaction but focuses even more on awareness, sensation, and subtle bodily shifts. It helps me pay attention to what is felt, not just what is seen or understood. RtD gives me a structure to think through making, Soma Design gives me a sensitivity to lived experience, and prototyping becomes the way I actually think, not just the way I produce outcomes.

I am also beginning to explore empathy not just as understanding, but as something that can be felt through the body. My goal is not to explain social anxiety, but to create conditions where people can sense what it is like to navigate difficult emotions in social situations. Playful, gentle, and subtle interactions can act as entry points into these experiences without forcing people into exposure.

Wearables are a possible direction here, not as gadgets, but as tools for private, intimate interaction that combine the analog and digital by directly involving the body. They can support embodied, somatic experiences that remain personal rather than performative.

How my way of thinking has changed:
At the beginning, I focused mostly on the outcome: what technology to use, how things might look, what form the artefact could take. Now I understand that this comes after the conceptual work, which is shaped by the theoretical framework and the methods. I am learning to let meaning lead form, not the other way around.

So far, this is the theoretical base I’ve ended up with:

  • Social Anxiety: characteristics & emotional qualities
  • Embodied Interaction
  • (Social) Play
  • Soma Design – Kristina Höök
  • Research through Design (RtD)
  • Prototyping
  • Analog-Digital
  • (Empathy)
  • (Wearables)

Over the next few months of developing the thesis, I want to continue working in this way, moving from reading and reflecting into small material experiments.

AI was used for corrections, better wording, and enhancements.

by Veronika Poštrak -

IMPULSE #8 – A Meeting & Websites

This impulse began with a meeting with my thesis supervisor, Mr. Baumann, where we discussed my topic in a more focused and structured way. Beyond talking about the concept itself, we spoke about how to approach the research phase and how to translate inspiration into something usable for a master’s thesis. One key takeaway from this meeting was his suggestion to start systematically collecting websites that function as strong examples of web storytelling. The focus was not only on visual quality, but on how these websites guide users through information, create meaning through interaction, and build narratives across structure, content, and interface.

I realized that I had already been doing this informally for a while. Whenever I came across a website that made me think “this is good web storytelling”, I saved it to my notes. After this conversation, however, I turned that habit into a more structured process by creating a spreadsheet where I collect examples, categorize them, and add notes about their narrative strategies, interaction patterns, and thematic focus. This spreadsheet will definitely continue to expand over the next weeks as my thesis research progresses. Below, I present a small selection of websites that tell stories in different ways.

AI Takes Over

This website uses humor and interaction to make a complex and often intimidating topic feel approachable. The opening line “AI Takes Over” followed by “Okay, just kidding :)”, immediately sets a playful tone and signals that the site aims to guide rather than overwhelm the user. The visual design supports this narrative approach through a futuristic color palette that gradually shifts from red to purple as the user scrolls. The story moves from past to present to future, combining short explanations, statistics, and myth-busting sections. This creates a clear narrative arc that educates while keeping the experience light. Overall, the website frames AI as a tool rather than a threat, showing how storytelling and interface design can influence perception and understanding.

The Silly Bunny

The Silly Bunny website is a strong example of how immersive technology can be used as a storytelling tool rather than a visual gimmick. Through motion, 2D and 3D illustrations, and interactive elements, the site transforms navigation into exploration. Instead of simply consuming information, users actively move through the brand’s story, discovering elements as they interact with the interface. This playful and experimental approach creates a sense of curiosity and engagement, while reinforcing the brand’s creative identity. The storytelling here happens through interaction itself, making the experience memorable and distinct.

The Message to Ukraine

This is a powerful example of emotional and cultural storytelling on the web. The website unfolds as one continuous narrative, combining poetry, animation, typography, and interaction to celebrate Ukrainian identity and history. Gestalt principles play an important role throughout the experience: images break down into dots and lines and reassemble into recognizable forms as the user scrolls. Content layers overlap like pages in a book, supported by a custom typeface and carefully crafted animations. The result is an experience that feels deeply human and intentional, using interaction and visual language to turn national memory and emotion into a digital story.

Unifiers of Japan

The Unifiers of Japan website presents historical storytelling in a playful and accessible way. Inspired by samurai history and Ukiyo-e art, it reimagines 1600s Japan through modern illustration and interaction. Each historical figure is introduced through interactive cards that highlight key moments and strategies, allowing users to explore the story at their own pace. Rather than overwhelming the user with historical facts, the site focuses on character, contrast, and curiosity. This approach shows how storytelling on the web can simplify complex topics while still encouraging deeper engagement.

And of course, THE Lando Norris Website

This website is a strong example of brand storytelling driven by motion and performance. Speed-inspired animations, sharp transitions, and cinematic scrolling mirror the intensity of Formula 1, making the interface itself part of the narrative. The design balances McLaren’s racing heritage with Lando Norris’s personal identity, using bold typography, color, and interaction to communicate who he is beyond the track. Storytelling here is not delivered primarily through text, but through rhythm, responsiveness, and flow. The result is a digital experience that feels energetic, personal, and closely tied to its subject.

This growing collection of websites already plays an important role in shaping how I understand narrative UX and interactive storytelling. By analyzing different approaches, from educational and cultural narratives to brand-driven and immersive experiences, I am building a foundation that will inform both the research and design phases of my master’s thesis.

Disclaimer: This blog post was written with the help of AI for better grammar and correct spelling.

by sopio.archilia -

Using Blippar Builder for AR Prototyping

One of the platforms I tested is Blippar, specifically Blippar Builder, which is promoted as a no-code AR creation tool.

This blogpost clarifies what Blippar Builder can actually do, what it cannot do, and how it fits into my overall prototyping workflow.

What is Blippar Builder?

Blippar Builder is a web-based AR authoring platform that allows users to create AR experiences without programming. Content such as 3D models, images, videos, and text can be placed into an AR scene and triggered through QR codes or image recognition. The experience then runs on smartphones, either via WebAR or the Blippar app.

Official platform information:
https://www.blippar.com/builder

The tool is mainly designed for marketing and branded AR experiences, but it can also be used in design research contexts.

What Blippar Builder is good at

Blippar Builder works well for early-stage AR prototyping. It allows me to quickly visualize ideas and test how AR content appears in real physical environments. This includes checking scale, placement, readability, and overall visual clarity.

For my thesis, this distinction is actually helpful. Blippar Builder can function as an early-stage tool to test visual comfort, scale, clarity, and first emotional reactions to AR content. These are key aspects of my research, which focuses on reducing sensory overload and improving emotional comfort in retail settings.

Because the tool requires no coding, it keeps the focus on design decisions rather than technical implementation.

What Blippar Builder cannot do

Blippar Builder has clear limitations when it comes to interaction depth. It does not support complex user flows, adaptive behavior, or logic that changes based on user state. Interaction options are mostly predefined and linear.

Blippar offers both a visual Builder and a Unity plug-in, but they are used in different ways. Projects made in the Builder cannot be moved into Unity. The Unity plug-in is for building AR experiences directly in Unity, while the Builder is mainly for quick visual prototypes and testing ideas.

Blippar Builder vs Unity: how they connect

Blippar Builder and Unity serve different roles in the design process.

Blippar Builder → early visual / comfort / perception testing

Unity + Blippar SDK → advanced AR development (if needed)

Unity without Blippar SDK → alternative AR pipeline

When a company like Blippar offers an AR SDK, it means: developers can build AR experiences inside their own app or in Unity

SDK- A Software Development Kit (SDK) is a collection of tools and code libraries that allows developers to build and customize applications by directly programming functionality, such as AR tracking or interaction logic.

Why this tool choice makes sense for my thesis

Using Blippar Builder at an early stage allows me to:

  • test visual comfort and clarity quickly
  • observe first user reactions
  • refine design direction before technical development
  • free for the first steps

Later, moving to Unity (with more experience and money) allows for more complex experimentation with interaction, pacing, and user behavior. This separation demonstrates a structured and methodologically sound design process, rather than a limitation.

Scope and Limitations of the Prototype Testing

The prototype was not designed to evaluate long-term usage patterns, complex interaction flows, or adaptive and personalized system behavior. These aspects were intentionally excluded from the testing process. The focus of the research lies on first impressions, visual clarity, sensory comfort, and initial emotional responses to AR-supported retail interactions, rather than on system performance, prolonged engagement, or behavioral optimization over time.

My feedback on the User-experience aspect of it while trying it out a bit.

One issue I noticed early on is that the instant readiness of the tool can be misleading. The previews and renderings inside the Builder often give a more polished impression than the final AR experience after publishing. In practice, this means that what looks good during setup does not always translate exactly the same way in the live AR environment.

As a result, publishing can sometimes lead to disappointment, especially when expectations are set too high by the in-editor preview. This made it clear that multiple rounds of testing, proofreading, and correction are necessary to achieve the desired quality. In that sense, the tool encourages fast creation, but still requires careful refinement to avoid false assumptions about the final outcome.

I also encountered some features that were not immediately intuitive and were harder to understand or apply within my project context. Certain functions require trial and error before their behavior becomes clear, which can slow down the workflow at times.

That said, aside from these limitations, my first interaction with Blippar Builder was mostly smooth. The platform allowed me to create the type of AR content I had in mind without needing coding knowledge, which is a significant advantage. This accessibility is a key reason why such tools attract attention at trade shows and events and can contribute to increased engagement and sales. By lowering the technical barrier, Blippar Builder opens up AR creation to a wider audience and enables brands to differentiate themselves through interactive marketing experiences.

Conclusion

Blippar Builder is capable of producing AR prototypes, but primarily at a conceptual and visual level. It is best suited for early-stage design exploration and communication of ideas. For more complex interaction and behavioral research, it needs to be combined with more flexible development tools such as Unity.

In my thesis workflow, Blippar Builder therefore functions as a valuable early-stage prototyping tool, supporting design exploration before moving into deeper technical development.

Source links you can include in your blogpost:

In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft